Politics Discussion

[jordsta95]

1. What is inflation? I previously called this a trick question.

See Pyure's answer

2. What is money? We are no longer on a precious metal standard.

Money is still balanced against the reserves of gold that a country owns, see "gold standard"

3. What is the proper view of money flow?

I assume you are talking about a general view of what is healthy in terms of money flow.
Governments always try to encourage public spending as it keeps an economy stable. If people don't spend money, then the value of products go down. And if the value of products go down, the people making the products get less money. If the people making the products make less money, they can't afford to buy more raw materials. If they can't afford to buy more raw materials, the cost of raw materials either has to drop to accommodate this, or the supplier has to do something drastic.

Let's take cheese (because it is an easy example)
People stop buying cheese as much, for whatever reason.
Which means that instead of 1kg of cheese being worth $10, it is now worth $6.
That means that cheese companies are making 40% less than usual, so either they have to reduce the employees' wages, or have to sack some off. OR they have to try and get the milk they use to make the cheese for less, and because of the size of cheese industry, you need to have all the employees, and you don't lower their wages in fears of strikes/mass quittings. So you bargain for cheaper milk.
Now the farmer who usually only gets $2 for every kg of milk (in its equivalence to cheese) only gets $1.50. And because he is getting 1/4 less cash, he has to get rid of a quarter of his cows, so he can afford to at least keep some cows alive.
Instead of just killing his cows, he sells them off for beef, because it is a little bit extra money for him. But that means that the amount of beef produced that month goes up, which means its cost goes down...

And this continues throughout, so the flow of money doesn't want to change too much, or else it can cause MASSIVE ripples in the market.

4. Is there any problem with a person being rich?

No, of course not. Rich people make a lot of money, but also pay a lot in taxes and general spending, which helps keep the economy going.

5. How do you deal with someone working for 40 years, and then retiring and living another 40-60 years?

That's what pension schemes are for. A person works, and puts a small percentage of their wage away for when they retire. And when they do, they may have $400,000 saved up, which on $20,000 a year is 20 years. Which is 10 years over the average life expectancy (in most countries).
But living more than 40 years past retirement age is rare, seeing as the OLDEST a person can be when they are "forced" to retire is in their early-mid 60's (at least here in the UK) and 40 years is pushing the 100's.
If someone retires when they have they are in their 40's/50's they can almost definitely afford to live until they are 100 (if you retire "young" you are most likely a million/billionaire)

 

[Pyure]

I actually viewed keybounce's retirement item as an interesting hypothetical based on the fact that people's lives are getting longer.

A hundred years from now it might not be abnormal for people to live to 150. Is it reasonable to expect their government- or corporate-funded retirement to cover from 90 years of retirement, or should the retirement age slide back accordingly as well?

 

[trajing]

I actually viewed keybounce's retirement item as an interesting hypothetical based on the fact that people's lives are getting longer.

A hundred years from now it might not be abnormal for people to live to 150. Is it reasonable to expect their government- or corporate-funded retirement to cover from 90 years of retirement, or should the retirement age slide back accordingly as well?

Hayflick limit. There is a set limit as to how long humans can live.

 

[jordsta95]

I actually viewed keybounce's retirement item as an interesting hypothetical based on the fact that people's lives are getting longer.

A hundred years from now it might not be abnormal for people to live to 150. Is it reasonable to expect their government- or corporate-funded retirement to cover from 90 years of retirement, or should the retirement age slide back accordingly as well?

Actually, average life expectancy is only increasing because child mortality is lowering.

 

[Pyure]

Actually, average life expectancy is only increasing because child mortality is lowering.

Can you give me a reference for that? I actually believe you, I'm just curious on how it breaks down.

Regardless I'd be surprised if my point didn't stand.

 

[epidemia78]

I used to care about politics and stuff but I dont any more. Life is too short. Maybe some people want to change the world but honestly I dont care what happens to civilization after I am dead.

 

[jordsta95]

Can you give me a reference for that? I actually believe you, I'm just curious on how it breaks down.

Regardless I'd be surprised if my point didn't stand.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT apart from the odd country, it is in global decrease.

But I am not saying that people aren't living to older ages too... but I don't agree with this either.
When I think of "living" I think of a person not having any outside help to prolong their life, unfortunately we live in a day and age where we can prolong life by (in some cases) 10 years. Which means we are seeing a lot of elderly people (mainly in countries with free healthcare) that are WAY past "sell-by" date.

A lot of people think I am gross, and inhumane for thinking this way. But I feel that when a person gets to a certain age, I think 80 is a maximum, we should no longer give them free healthcare. We need to stop being afraid to let people die. If someone wants to live to 100, their body should be prepared to do that, they shouldn't rely on a hip replacement every 8 years, and constant pills, and medical checkups, to achieve their goal... If they want to do it, they should pay for it.
Children should get priority in healthcare, (assuming they are physically healthy, again see "gross and inhumane"). I was in hospital once and I overheard a doctor talking to a parent saying that they had just ran out of a certain blood type (for her child who, I assume, needed either a blood transfusion, or needed surgery, or something). And I can only assume it was some old bitty that got that blood, or there was some that helped drain that supply.

We could probably raise the average life expectancy more, if we lowered the average life expectancy when ignoring the figures of deaths under 30;
If we include deaths under 30 the average life expectancy may be 68
If we exclude deaths under the age of 30 life expectancy shoots up, I wouldn't be shocked if it went to the 80's

 

[SolManX]

A lot of people think I am gross, and inhumane for thinking this way. But I feel that when a person gets to a certain age, I think 80 is a maximum, we should no longer give them free healthcare. We need to stop being afraid to let people die. If someone wants to live to 100, their body should be prepared to do that, they shouldn't rely on a hip replacement every 8 years, and constant pills, and medical checkups, to achieve their goal... If they want to do it, they should pay for it.
Children should get priority in healthcare, (assuming they are physically healthy, again see "gross and inhumane"). I was in hospital once and I overheard a doctor talking to a parent saying that they had just ran out of a certain blood type (for her child who, I assume, needed either a blood transfusion, or needed surgery, or something). And I can only assume it was some old bitty that got that blood, or there was some that helped drain that supply.

I must say i'm pretty disappointed to read this. You come across as a nice, gentle person so I can only believe you haven't really thought this through. You might want to read a little about eugenics - what you're suggesting is not the same, but it's similar. I'm afraid to say that it is gross and inhumane.

 

[trajing]

nice, gentle person

Have you met Jord?

 

[jordsta95]

I must say i'm pretty disappointed to read this. You come across as a nice, gentle person so I can only believe you haven't really thought this through. You might want to read a little about eugenics - what you're suggesting is not the same, but it's similar. I'm afraid to say that it is gross and inhumane.

I can assure you, I do not approve of eugenics, which is (to my understanding) basically having a "master race" (i.e. there should only be cis-white humans, and we could probably go more in detail).
I just think there is priorities. Children, they have their whole life in front of them. Old people have very little left ahead of them, and what they have ahead of them, no offence, is unlikely to ever benefit anyone ever.

As for the physically able thing, which I assume is what you are on about.
If there are two children one has Cystic Fibrosis, and one had no physical ailments. They are both in a car crash, and both need a new kidney. There is one possible donor, which means one child would die. The child with Cystic Fibrosis has a shorter life expectancy, due to their disease, than the child that doesn't, and one can assume that they will experience mild discomfort (at best) for at least part of their life.
So in this scenario, if the doctors were in charge of the decisions (due to the health care system being government owned, and not privatized) then they should, in my mind, take that into consideration, and unless the "healthy" child has a much lower chance of survival, then they shouldn't "waste" that kidney.
If the health care system is private, then whoever pays the most wins, I wouldn't be able to change that, even if I ruled the world

 

[L0NExW0LF]

As for the physically able thing, which I assume is what you are on about.
If there are two children one has Cystic Fibrosis, and one had no physical ailments. They are both in a car crash, and both need a new kidney. There is one possible donor, which means one child would die. The child with Cystic Fibrosis has a shorter life expectancy, due to their disease, than the child that doesn't, and one can assume that they will experience mild discomfort (at best) for at least part of their life.
So in this scenario, if the doctors were in charge of the decisions (due to the health care system being government owned, and not privatized) then they should, in my mind, take that into consideration, and unless the "healthy" child has a much lower chance of survival, then they shouldn't "waste" that kidney.

This is eugenics in practice. For those who don't know, think of eugenics as selective breeding for humans. I admit that it's much more complex than this, but I rather not get into a discussion on the topic.

 

[Pyure]

This is eugenics in practice. For those who don't know, think of eugenics as selective breeding for humans. I admit that it's much more complex than this, but I rather not get into a discussion on the topic.

This has nothing to do with eugenics (or selective breeding)

Killing off old people has zero direct impact on the gene pool. Any secondary impact is no different from other secondary impacts.

If the old people were still interested and capable of breeding, that's different.

 

[jordsta95]

This is eugenics in practice. For those who don't know, think of eugenics as selective breeding for humans. I admit that it's much more complex than this, but I rather not get into a discussion on the topic.

Meh, personally I don't care.
I don't say I value one walk of life over another, but I feel that the old shouldn't have their life prolonged, and the future should be put first.


But I will shut up on the matter, seeing as people don't think this way, and I have probably offended people.
I would say I'm sorry, but what I said wasn't worded in a way that was made to offend. It was just meant to express what I feel would be better for the country I live in...

 

[RavynousHunter]

Children should get priority in healthcare, (assuming they are physically healthy, again see "gross and inhumane"). I was in hospital once and I overheard a doctor talking to a parent saying that they had just ran out of a certain blood type (for her child who, I assume, needed either a blood transfusion, or needed surgery, or something). And I can only assume it was some old bitty that got that blood, or there was some that helped drain that supply.

They...already do get priority, at least in my neck of the woods. Chances are, it wasn't some old bat that got the blood, it was a relatively healthy person (non-smoker, no heart disease, etc) in the 18-24 demographic, or an injured kid that is, otherwise, healthy. "Who gets the blood" isn't a question of just age, there are a multitude of factors that any good doctor goes thru before making the hard choice. Typically, it goes either to patients who are in critical need (for example, you got shot and are now bleeding to death) or have the best chances of long-term survival. Old people, as much as it pains me to say this, don't have the latter on their side. Their bodies are typically weaker and more frail and, statistically speaking, have less of their lives ahead of them than a tween or teenager in similar circumstances.

Involuntary, indirect euthanasia (which is what your idea basically boils down to) is not the ethical choice. The ethical choice is to encourage organ and blood donation, and to help fund research on things like stem cell treatments and organ cloning. The former ends lives, the latter helps preserve them. In terms of the categorical imperative, the latter is the better choice, especially in the long term, where such treatments could be used to save the lives of young and old alike.

 

[jordsta95]

Involuntary, indirect euthanasia (which is what your idea basically boils down to) is not the ethical choice. The ethical choice is to encourage organ and blood donation, and to help fund research on things like stem cell treatments and organ cloning. The former ends lives, the latter helps preserve them. In terms of the categorical imperative, the latter is the better choice, especially in the long term, where such treatments could be used to save the lives of young and old alike.

Just wanna point out, as a planet, we don't want to preserve lives.
We do that, we over populate... ohh wait, we are already doing that.
The planet's population is almost 5x what it was 100 years ago. That's too quick of a population growth for what we can handle. And you may say, "But we didn't have figures of tribes in the Amazon" and stuff, back then. But we still don't know. And if we say that they only doubled in the last 100 years, that figure would still be pretty damn high (maybe 4x).
It is stupid to say this, but we actually don't want people to live longer. And have more kids.
There's a reason the "nuclear family" is something that was portrayed as "ideal". Because 2 kids can keep a population stable, 3, 4, 5 + no. It's not good.

 

[RavynousHunter]

I'll agree that there are way, way too many people. However, the solution isn't to just start starving the elderly of the healthcare they need. If we fund things to actually help the species, like I dunno, space colonization, then we don't have to worry about that. Yeah, it'll take quite a long while, but there are other solutions to the "too many people" problem that are more immediate. A lot of the problem comes from things like improper (or, in some cases, totally non-existent) sex education and social stigmas against things like contraception, adoption, and abortion. The solution isn't to start killing people, its to incentivize people to not breed as much. The birth rate isn't a static metric, it is ever-changing and, in most cases, accelerating. Your killing of the elderly would likely not make a dent in the overall human population unless you start going into, and above, Stalin territory and begin mass purges of "undesirables." To combat the problem, you need to lower the birth rate, and we have ways already of doing that, we just need to...well, we just need to grow the hell up as a species.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Related thingy http://www.breathingearth.net/

My thoughts on the matter are thus:

Prioritize people that have a longer time to live, unless someone is in the state that they are about to die (so you take in to account lifespan + severity). But by no means start practicing eugenics. Give healthcare to all people, there shouldn't be a cutoff date. @RavynousHunter is right, it won't make a dent in the pop, and because it will make the genepool better it will contribute to overpop more than it will make it better by far. Natural selection is just that natural it is a complex system that humans cannot control and that we shouldn't try to

 

[RavynousHunter]

Natural selection is just that natural it is a complex system that humans cannot control and that we shouldn't try to.

I dunno about that. I mean, depending on how you interpret it, we've been doing that for thousands of years via selective breeding, and more recently, with genetic manipulation. I think those two ideas are quite good, and have produced excellent results and should continue into the indefinite future.

 

[Strikingwolf]

I dunno about that. I mean, depending on how you interpret it, we've been doing that for thousands of years via selective breeding, and more recently, with genetic manipulation. I think those two ideas are quite good, and have produced excellent results and should continue into the indefinite future.

True, but not in the eugenics method. That is a bad idea

 

[trajing]

TBH I think that we should place attempting to help people who need it a little higher on our list of priorities. I say this meaning both physical and mental illnesses. Not going to post a huge line of reasoning until someone contests my POV.